BOCA RESEARCH, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
KROLL ASSOCIATES, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the cause of action accrued in Dade County, making it the proper venue.
Kroll Associates, Inc. filed a breach of contract action against Boca Research, Inc. in Dade County. Boca Research, with an office in Palm Beach Count…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Accrual Of Cause Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
SHEVIN, Judge.
Boca Research, Inc., appeals an order denying its motion to transfer venue. We affirm.
Plaintiff Kroll Associates, Inc., a foreign corporation, [Kroll] with offices in Dade County, filed a breach of contract action against Boca Research, a Florida corporation, which maintains a Palm Beach County office. The complaint alleges that Boca Research breached its agreement with Kroll by faffing to remit payment for services rendered. Kroll filed the action in Dade County. Boca Research sought transfer of the action to Palm Beach County.
Section 47.051, Florida Statutes (1995) provides, in pertinent part, that actions against domestic corporations shall be brought in the county where defendant corporation has a business office or where the cause of action accrued. Kroll filed the suit in Dade County arguing that Dade County is where the cause of action accrued. “An action ... on a contract for payment of money, where the contract debtor has defaulted on payments thereunder, accrues in the county where payment was agreed to be made.” Davis v. Dempsey, 343 So. 2d 950, 952 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Sunshine Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Bob Anslow Yacht Sales, Inc., 669 So. 2d 342, 343 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). The parties’ agreement, however, does not provide where payment was to be made. Under these circumstances, the debtor must seek the creditor to make payment. Davis, 343 So. 2d at 952. Therefore, it is implied that the payment was to be remitted in Dade County, where KrolTs office is located. Sunshine Yacht Sales, Inc., 669 So. 2d at 343; Davis, 343 So. 2d at 952. See generally Sinclair Fund, Inc., v. Burton, 623 So. 2d 587, 588 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)(“When a foreign corporation has an office in Florida, it is deemed to reside in the county in which the office is located for venue purposes.”). Accordingly, the cause of action accrued in Dade County, and the trial court properly denied the motion to transfer venue.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stuart Supply, Inc. v. CSX Transp., Inc., 699 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…parties called for payment to be made in Charlotte, North Carolina; the freight bills indicated that correspondence should be mailed to Jacksonville, and payment should be mailed to Charlotte. See,e.g., Boca Research, Inc. v. Kroll Associates, Inc., 677 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)(“‘[a]n action ... on a contract for payment of money, where the contract debtor has defaulted on payments thereunder, accrues in the county where payment was agreed to be made’ ”). The debtor must seek out the creditor only where…
-
Rayman v. Langdon Asset Mgmt., Inc., 745 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…CA 1960). [*428] The first claim concerns a failure to pay money owed. Generally, an action on the default of an agreement for monetary payment accrues in the county where payment was agreed to be made. See Boca Research, Inc. v. Kroll Assoc., Inc., 677 So. 2d 419, 419 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). “Where the contract does not expressly provide a place of payment, it is implied that the debtor must seek the creditor and that payment is to be made in the county where the payee resides.” Schecter v. Fishman, 525 So. 2d 5…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. Dempsey, 343 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- The Sinclair Fund v. Burton, 623 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Sunshine Yacht Sales, Inc. v. BOB Anslow Yacht Sales, Inc., 669 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)